Hon’ble Vivek Chaudhary, J.—Heard Sri P.K. Khare, learned counsel for revisionist-tenant and Sri Apoorva Tewari, learned counsel for respondent-landlord.

2. Present SCC revision is filed by the tenant challenging the judgment and order dated 31.8.1985 whereby the SCC Suit No. 2 of 1979 for his ejectment and for recovery of mesne profits, amounting to Rs. 25078.88 and pendalite and for future mesne profits @ Rs. 1150/- per month till actual eviction, is decreed with cost.

3. Facts of the case are that a Cinema Hall, known as Sunder Talkies, Unnao, was owned by the respondent. The said property was leased to the revisionist on 26.10.1964 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1150/-. The tenancy was to commence from the date when the lessee secures the license for exhibition of films and running cinema. An agreement was signed between the parties, however, the same could not be properly stamped and registered. The possession of the property was handed over to the lessee without there being any formal registered agreement executed and even later formalities were not completed. The revisionist secured license for running the cinema hall on 14.4.1965 and the tenancy also commenced from the said date. On 7.6.1968, the respondent issued notice requiring the revisionist to vacate the premises and handover the physical possession of the building alongwith the furniture and fixtures on expiry of 30 days of the receipt of notice. The said notice was served upon the revisionist on 10.6.1968. On 10.7.1968, the respondent got the possession of the property. However, revisionist strongly objected to the said eviction on the ground that his manager in collusion with the respondent illegally handed over the possession. It appears that, on a representation dated 17.7.1968 of the revisionist, the District Magistrate, Unnao intervened in the matter by his order of the same date i.e. 17.7.1968 and restored possession to the revisionist. The said order of District Magistrate provided that the cinema license is to expire on 31.7.1968 and on its’ expiry, the revisionist would handover the possession of the property back to the respondent. Under the aforesaid order of the District Magistrate, the possession of the property was restored on 20.7.1968 and thereafter, despite writ petitions being filed, the said possession was never returned by revisionist and hence, the suit.

4. Initially, the suit was filed on 29.4.1971, as regular suit No. 10 of 1971, praying for decree of eviction and possession of the property alongwith all equipments, fixtures etc. and for decree of mesne profits for wrongful possession and for future mesne profits. During pendency of the suit U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972 was notified and the suit was transferred to the Judge, Small Cause Court by a detailed reasoned and speaking order dated 8.2.1979. The regular suit No. 10 of 1971, after the said transfer, was registered and renumbered as SCC Suit No. 2 of 1979. By the impugned order dated 31.8.1985, the suit has been decreed by the Court below, directing eviction of tenant and mesne profits.

5. The first submission for challenging the impugned order by the revisionist is, that, in view of relief sought in the plaint, the Small Cause Court, Judge had no jurisdiction to hear the matter and the suit should have continued as a regular suit and heard by the Civil Court as a regular suit. The attention is drawn to the relief sought in the plaint which reads :

“The plaintiff, therefore, claims :

A. A decree for possession of the premises known as Sunder Talkies Unnao, with all equipments furnitures etc. as per details given in annexures ‘A’ to this plaint together with further addition, if any, bounded as given below by the ejectment of the defendants though Court:

Boundary
East	Beni Grover land belonging to Sri Wasi Ahmad.
West	House of late Sultan Mirza
North	Ganga